Decreasing Risk and Building Trust: Conservation Compliance and Crop Insurance

Tuesday

US farmers and ranchers can have an attitude ofindependence that borders on sheer contrariness. When farm organizations andleaders representing USagriculture speak there is often an underlying message that farmers know whatwe're doing on the land, how to do it, and as long as we're doing our job,don't ask too many questions or put demands on us.

A recent example of this position came from HouseAgriculture Committee Chair Frank Lucas. In a pressrelease reinforcing his opposition to adding conservationcompliance to crop insurance, Lucas stated that conservation "compliancemeasures tied to crop insurance would be a misguided and redundant regulatoryburden imposed on farmers and their property rights… Farmers and ranchers arethe best possible stewards of their land. They are already successfully usingconservation practices to protect our natural resources."

Lack of conservation can lead to loss of soil - aresource that can take thousands of years to rebuild. Photo: Lisa French

Nevertheless, farmers and ranchers rely heavily oninvestments made by the other 98% of theUSpopulation, and on the access to global markets negotiated with other nations. US taxpayerscurrently investbillions in crop insurance subsidies, commodity loans, conservationcost-shares, and other ag subsidies so that farmers and ranchers can "do theirjob" and have a safety net. When you add in the investments that our nationmakes to keep roads maintained, rivers dredged, and ports maintained totransport crops and livestock, I would say that producers are beholden to a lotof people.

The farm subsidy provision getting the most attentionnow is crop insurance - a program where US taxpayersnow contribute around 60% of the cost of premiums.

I would be among the first to admit that without cropinsurance, my operation would be in a world of hurts. In 2011 and 2012 we hadlittle or no wheat or sorghum crop due to a drought that lasted until almostmid-year of 2013.

If current versions of the House and Senate farm billhold true, insurance will be the centerpiece of the agricultural safety net asdirect payments and other commodity title programs fade away. However, toreceive commodity subsidies, farmers must comply with basic conservationcompliance measures that protect soil and water. That compliance is notcurrently part of the crop insurance programs. The Senate version passed lastMay added conservation compliance; the House version eliminated that provisionmostly from opposition from Agriculture Committee chair, Frank Lucas.

Lucas' opposition was bolstered by the American FarmBureau's shift on the issue. AFB hadnot objected to requiring some tying conservation to insuranceprograms in the Senate bill. However, little over a month later they suddenlymade an about face and complained, like Lucas, that compliance would only addbureaucracy and further burden farmers.

Maybe it's time to look at crop insurance with thesame lens as we use for people. Over the past few decades, insurance companieshave become involved in health maintenance, and preventing illness for those theyinsure. The overall costs of insurance come down as the pool of those insuredinclude those that are in good health or are working to lessen their risk todisease. Insurance companies know that promoting health and safety rather thansimply paying for the costs of illness and mishap, lowers costs and spreadsbenefits.

Should it be any different for those managing theresource base that must continue to provide food and fiber not just for theshort term profits of a family that may be there for a few generations, but forthe long term future? In addition, agriculture operates in a global context.Management of soil and water has a role to play in creating resilience,capturing carbon, and meeting the demands of a world that will increasinglyface the challenges of poverty, extreme weather, and constrained resources.

On my family's operation, and on those farms andranches that I look to as models of stewardship, we invest heavily each year onbuildingsoil health , reducingtillage, and managingthe grass and forage that support the livestock both above and below thesoil. In this way, the shocks of disasters are buffered and cost of recovery isless. This is also a premium paid to manage risk.

When farmers and rural folks complain that anincreasingly urban Americadoesn't understand agriculture, they should consider the message they sent byrejecting the modest request for accountability. Conservation compliancemeasures have been required for participating in other commodity programs fordecades. Now crop insurance is poised to become the primary safety net forfarmers. The funding for that transfer of risk relies primarily on thenon-farming population; those folks have every right to require us to protectthat investment and manage for risk in a way that preserves the soil, water, andair in a way that can make our world more resilient and productive forcenturies to come.

Jim French farmed and ranched full-time for twenty five years in south-central Kansas before joining the Oxfam America staff in 2005. He now serves as Oxfam's Senior Advocacy Advisor for Agriculture. He still manages a modest crop and livestock operation - See more at: http://politicsofpoverty.oxfamamerica.org/2013/11/18/decreasing-risk-and-building-trust-conservation-compliance-and-crop-insurance/#sthash.LzR6XquR.dpuf